Following the general discussion of material culture types associated with Native American use and trade in colonial New England, this chapter identifies and discusses the specific artifacts from the Plymouth collections and attempts to identify areas where these items may cluster spatially. Characterization of these assemblages is necessary due to the number of artifacts that are missing from the collection or that lack adequate provenience information. This is intended to include some level of detail and to function as descriptive catalog for comparative use as few disciplinary resources directly address Plymouth Colony examples of the material culture of these interactions. The materials addressed in this chapter were selected for analysis based on the research in the proceeding chapter on expected artifact types and/or because of signs of manipulation, modification, or hybrid attributes. It should also be noted here, although not discussed further, that all of the sites associated with this Plymouth analysis have significant Native components that attest to Native habitation and land use before the arrival of Europeans.
The Winslow Collection
Historical Context
Quite a bit of documentary evidence connects Native people to the Winslows.
In fact, Josiah’s mother, Susanna Winslow, had a Native manservant who lived on the property. It has suggested that he may have been a prisoner from the Pequot War due to his long indenture (Goldstein 2001: 103-104, Wakefield 1997: 3). It is possible that this Native manservant may have been the source of some of the ambiguous objects present in the collection. He also may have been connected to other local Native in and around the community, indentured or otherwise. The Winslows themselves are also historically known for their efforts as diplomats specifically toward the Native community. Edward, in particular, is known for his position as ambassador to the Wampanoag and his personal relationship with Massasoit. Josiah is recorded as having received at least one Wampanoag leader, Wamsutta, at his home in 1662.
While this particular visit did not end well (Wamsutta fell ill and died), it does not preclude other on-going contact between the Winslows or members of their household with the surrounding Native community (Goldstein 2001).
Material Culture
Knives, Spoons, and Firearms
The Winslow collection contains ten bone or ivory utensil handles, one of which includes an attached knife blade. The handles range from 4.9 to 8.2 in length and range from 0.83 to 1.8 cm wide and are primarily intact. There are 20 knife
blades present in the collection. The majority of these blades are fragmentary, but they range from 2.38 to 13.56 cm long and 1.1 to 2.46 cm wide. Five spoon bowls are present in the collection. These bowls range from 5.52 to 6.52 cm long and range from 4.07 to 5.5 cm wide. All five bowls are fig leaf shaped, one of which is perforated to drain liquid. There are nine “stem” or handle fragments present in the collection, they range from 4.74 to 11.38 cm long and 1.65 to 7.3 cm wide. Three of these are seal top, one has a trifid ending, one is in the Puritan or plain style, two are slip top, and two are hexagonal. The collection also contains one complete silver pap spoon. Firearms and related material include 13 possible gun parts, 6 tools and related items (bandoleer caps), 10 gunflints, 93 pieces of flint debitage, 197 pieces of lead shot, and 2 shot molds.
Figure 2. A knife blade, ivory handle, trifid spoon stalk, and seal top spoon from the Winslow site
Figure 3. Firearm related artifacts from the Winslow site. From top to bottom, gun barrel, shot mold, gun scourer, lead shot (2), battery, gunflake (flint).
Sheet Metal
The Winslow site contains a total of 55 of pieces of copper alloy sheet metal.
Much of this sheet metal appears to be heavily manipulated, showing signs of scoring, cutting, and riveting. There are a number of identifiable kettle parts in the collection, such as a few rims (hard to confirm, at least two), one ear, two handles, one possible foot, and many pieces with rivets or rivet holes (17), at least one is obviously a kettle patch. Most of these fragments also show signs of the same types of manipulation and similar physical properties; it is possible that much of the sheet metal was repurposed from kettles (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Copper-alloy kettle parts from the Winslow site. From the upper left to right: riveted sheet metal, handle, riveted lug, rolled or folded kettle rim, triangular patch, rectangular patch.
Using Ehrhardt’s (2005: 105-140) methods to categorize sheet metal into identifiable shapes and therefore possible intended purposes, the categories include rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular. Some might be considered what Ehrhardt refers to as “blanks,” or preforms of rolled beads, tinkling cones, or other
purposefully crafted items. These “blanks” have more defined shapes and cleaner edges than their irregular counterparts. Within the collection, 24 pieces of copper alloy sheet metal have been classified as rectangular, 11 of these are uniform enough to be considered possible rolled bead blanks. Four are considered to be trapezoidal, none of which are uniform enough to be blanks. I have also specified an “irregular”
category; this allows for “wastage” and pieces too corroded or degraded to be
categorized as potential blanks to still be assigned an overall shape. Sixteen fragments
are irregular rectangle forms shapes, eight are irregular trapezoids, and three irregular fragments have an indeterminable shape (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Rectangular, trapezoidal, and irregular sheet metal sheet metals from the Winslow site
Overall, the sheet metal ranges from 8.8 to 97.8 mm in length, 4.5 to 55.9 mm in width, and 0.5 to 3.7 mm in thickness. Particularly interesting are three pieces of rolled copper alloy that were previously cataloged as “aglets”(Figure 7). Similar artifacts were recovered at the R.M. and Allerton sites. While it is possible that these are, in fact, aglets, I argue that they are actually rolled beads. This interpretation is supported by their obvious “homemade” appearance: irregularity in thickness, and similarity to other obviously worked sheet metal at these sites. They also look similar to items identified as rolled copper beads at other sites (Gary 2005; Ehrhardt 2005).
They are also differ from a manufactured aglet recovered from the R.M. site (Figure 7)
Figure 6. Possible broken projectile point from the Winslow site, bottom side (point) has been folded to fracture; other three sides have
been cut.
Figure 7. “Aglets” or possible rolled beads from the Winslow site (left) as compared to a uniform, manufactured aglet from the R.M. site (below).
In an effort to better characterize the copper alloy sheet metals of the Winslow site, I choose to sample these categories: rectangular and trapezoidal forms (29
artifacts total, 7 sampled), irregular forms (28 artifacts total, 7 sampled), and outliers of those forms (1 artifact, 1 sampled). Sampling was necessary as the total number of copper–alloy sheet metal pieces from all three sites was too large for in depth
analysis.
The samples were all selected randomly in Microsoft Excel using this Natural breaks approach:
Number of Artifacts Percentage Sampled 1-3 100%
4-6 50%
7-15 33%
16-30 25%
31-60 22%
Once selected, the samples were analyzed in depth using a low-power
dissecting scope. This process looked at each of the sampled pieces to determine if it was hot or cold worked. Irregularity of thickness was determined and compared by site using digital calipers. This was calculated by recording three measurements of thickness (two sides and the middle) and then determining the maximum variance between them. Detailed information about the manipulation of each piece was recorded such as number of rivets, number of cut edges, number of score lines, and evidence of rolling or folding. An was made effort to determine the presence of cutting signatures (snips, knife, scissors); however, this examination revealed that the edges of the sheet metal are degraded and corroded, leaving no discernible cutting signatures.
Using this methodology I determined that almost all of the Winslow
assemblage seems to have been hot worked, probably through a process called
annealing, where pieces are individually heated and reheated in a fire for the purposes of hammering and shaping; the likelihood of hammering is indicated by the
irregularity of thickness in most of the sample with a maximum variance of 0.51 mm.
Only one artifact in the sample group appeared to have been cold hammered, showing signs of cracking. While it is apparent that almost all of the sampled sheet metal had at least one edge that has been cut or snipped, cutting signatures for snips, scissors, or knives were unobservable. Signs of stress from folding, rolling, and folding to
fracture (snap) are seen on 10 artifacts (75 percent of total sample), although intentionality is difficult to determine in this regard.
Tools, Personal Items, and other Metal Objects
Tools include one ax head and one ax socket, seven wedges, four tool collars that are indeterminate, four awls, two files, and one sickle. Personal items include 16 straight pins, 7 domed metal buttons, 4 large fasteners, 3 copper aglets, 41 buckles, and 1 jaw or mouth harp. Five scissor fragments also exist, 3 of which are small enough to be associated with sewing/embroidery tasks; the other 2 are more likely utilitarian. Other items include 3 fishhooks, 1 lead seal, and 13 intact and 1 partial
“curtain” rings.
Figure 8. Tools, personal items, and other metal objects from the Winslow site.
Pictured from top to bottom, left to right: lead bale seal, mouth harp, button, brass buckle, clothing hooks, straight pin, fish hook, awl button, brass buckle, clothing hooks, straight pin, fish hook, awl.
Native-Produced Materials
Due to the broad nature of this analysis, my characterization of the Native ceramics recovered from the Winslow site is a simplified one. Of the 188 potsherds in the collection, 26 of them fall into the less than 1 square cm range, 91 of them fall into the 1-2 square cm range, and 12 of them fall into the 3-5 square cm range. Of these, 21 are decorated, which equals 11 percent of the total number of potsherds.
These materials show none of the known attributes that would suggest that they post- date the arrival of Europeans or were artifacts of interaction. In other words, none of the potsherds are in the style of Shantok wares or exhibit European influences in design or decoration such as those found at other known multiethnic colonial sites (Gary 2005, 2007; Goodby 1992: 14; Johnson 2000). The spatial information attributed to these Native artifacts also does not show any significant areas of use or
One piece of soapstone in the collection with thin circular indention on it may indicate colonial influences; and was previously catalogued as a Native paint pot (Figure 9). This artifact is similar to stone buttonmolds recovered from Native in sites in Natick, Yarmouth, Kingston, and Essex, Massachusetts (Willoughby 1973: 243).
These have been found accompanied by lead and brass buttons made from the molds, some of which appear similar to the lead discs also in the Winslow collection. None the other of the lithic materials from this collection show any indicators that they may date from the colonial period.
Figure 9. Possible stone buttonmold from the Winslow site
Spatial Analysis of the Winslow Site
Henry Hornblower II and the Harvard Excavator’s Club excavated the
Winslow site starting in 1941. These excavations covered more than 1500 square feet exposing the cellar hole and what appeared to be the structure’s footprint (Goldstein
2001: 95). The site was excavated using a 2-m grid in arbitrary levels of 15-20 cm (Beaudry and George 1987). Artifacts and associated provenience information were recorded by unit, and plans and profiles were made of uncovered features.
Hornblower was able to identify a cellar hole (20 m by 5 m) and a shallow depression, now called “Structures 1 and 2.” An area known as the “passageway”
joins these structures. Another possible hearth, smaller than the other, was also identified, and deemed to either be part of an extension of the house or an outside fire pit (Beaudry et al. 2003; Deetz and Deetz 2000) (Figures 10 and 11). No documents suggest when the house was built or if the Mayflower passenger, Edward Winslow, ever actually lived there. Using Binford’s pipe stem dating formula, a mean date of occupation for the home is 1671 (Goldstein 2001: 98, Noel Hume 1969). This date suggests that Edward’s son, Josiah and his wife Penelope, may have been the primary occupants of this structure.
Figure 10. Historic site plan of the 1941 excavations of the Winslow site.
(Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation)
Figure 11. Historic site plan of the 1947 excavations of the Winslow site (Courtesy of Plimoth Plantation)
Bullen was commissioned by Hornblower to finish the project in 1947; his excavation revealed a colonial trash pit that capped a Native shell midden. This ashy feature included European artifacts and associated linear postholes, but also had “pre- contact” Native materials on top of it. Bullen interpreted this to be a natural
depression, which was filled with the remains of a fire. He proposed that soils from other areas of the property containing the earlier Native materials were used to cap these remains. Due to a lack of window glass and an abundance of nails, along with the presence of the postholes, it is thought that this structure may have been a barn or other outbuilding (Goldstein 2001). Differing structural interpretations are further discussed in Beaudry et al. (2003), Deetz and Deetz (2000), and Goldstein (2001).
Notes and maps from the 1941 excavation indicate that the average depth of the plow zone of this site was approximately 0-25 cm below surface (bs). Notes detailing plow zone depths are not available for each unit; unless otherwise specified, 25 cmbs is assumed as the depth of the plow zone. Artifacts are grouped based on their depth below surface as indicated by catalog number and corresponding field notes. I first address artifacts presently accounted for in the collections, and then address other materials listed in the field documentation, but which are either no longer present in the collection or have been disassociated from their provenience data.
Hornblower designated this site into seven areas. Structure 1 is divided into
“W” (western portion) and “E” (eastern portion). The Passageway joins the whole of Structure 1 to the whole of Structure 2. Structure 2 is also divided into “W” (western
portion) and “E” (eastern portion). A hearth feature was located directly south of these structures. The “trash pit/shell mound” was located to the southwest. Notes from the excavation indicate that the excavation as a whole reached a maximum depth of approximately 200 cmbs in some areas before reaching subsoil.
Structure 1 E represents the eastern half of the Winslow home. Artifacts present in the collections that are pertinent to this analysis range from 50-150 cmbs.
Notes indicate that the excavators believe that the floor of the structure was
somewhere around 80 cmbs. From 50-75 cmbs artifacts that may indicate interaction in the collection include one fragmented body section of a projectile point, one fragment of copper alloy sheet metal, one wedge, two pieces of flint debitage, one
7/64″ pipe fragment, and four 6/64″ pipe fragments.
Materials associated with this depth, but which are not accounted for in the collection include one flint fragment and 61 other “stone chips.” Artifacts found between 75-150 cmbs include one buckle, one pipe stem measuring 5/64″, one measuring 6/64″, and two stems measuring 7/64″. One bale seal and one awl are the collection from this context but are not listed in the original catalog/notes.
Structure 2 is also divided into two sections, but will be treated as a whole structure as many of the artifacts lack E and W designations and many with
designations are not explicitly listed in the original catalog. For the layer between 25- 50 cmbs only two Native potsherds in the 2-3 square cm range are present in the collection. The catalog listing reports “21 potsherds,” but how many of these are
Native is undeterminable. Pipe fragments from this layer include two stems with bores measuring 5/64″, one that measures 6/64″, and two that measure 7/64″.
Artifacts in the layer 50-75 cmbs include one piece of flint debitage and four Native potsherds, three measure between 2-3 square cm and one measures between the range of 3-5 square cm. Pipe stems from this context include four that measure
5/64″, five that measure 6/64″, one that measures 7/64″, and two bowl fragments.
Artifacts listed in the original catalog associated with this level, but which are either not present or are unlabeled within the collection, include 42 “stone chips.” Artifacts in the collection from 100-125 cmbs include one lead shot with attached sprue, one fishhook, one brass “curtain ring,” one stone scraper, and one piece of copper-alloy sheet metal. The sheet metal fragment is of particular interest, as it resembles similar items in other contexts interpreted as brass projectile points. In this instance, three sides show clean cuts, potentially creating a triangular shaped point. The missing section (including point) has not survived, but shows detachment not from a clean intentional cut, but from being damages or folded to the point of snapping (Figure 6).
Other materials recorded in the original catalog include 10 “stone flakes,” one Native potsherd, and other primarily European artifacts.
Artifacts from the layer between 125-265 cmbs in the collection and listed in the catalog include 1 iron wedge and 10 pipe fragments— 5 with a bore measurement of 5/64″, two that measure 6/64″, 1 that measures 7/64″, and 2 bowl fragments. Artifacts in the collection, but not listed in the catalog under their attributed provenience location include one quartz projectile point and two Native potsherds measuring 2-3
square cm. The original catalog also includes two glass beads, one pin, five stone chips, and two arrow fragments; however, I am unable to substantiate links from artifacts to these listings. Finally, one spoon handle present in the collection is attributed to this structure, but not given a depth.
The hearth feature directly south of Structure 2 may represent a non-central heat source for a room or possibly an outdoor area (Goldstein 2001). Most artifacts attributed to this area are listed as being within the general plow zone depth or have no depth indicated; because of this, I address this area as one group. Household items and tools include one bone handle (knife or fork), two spoon handles, one iron awl, one bullet mold fragment, two pieces of flint debitage, and one wedge. Personal items from this level include two buckles and one pin. Lithic artifacts include one plummet and one piece of sheet metal. Native ceramic potsherds include one that measures 1-2 square cm, and two potsherds within the 2-3 square cm range. Pipes associated with these contexts including 6 stems with bores measuring 5/64″, 14 measuring 6/64″, 6 measuring 7/64″, and 3 measuring 8/64″.
The final area of the site discussed, known as the colonial trash pit and underlying Native shell midden, contains the most evidence for Native-colonial interactions for this site. Artifacts recovered between 25-40 cmbs and that are
accounted for in the collection include one flint “chip,” one copper alloy “aglet,” and one piece of copper alloy sheet metal. Other artifacts listed in the original catalog but without matching provenience numbers in the collection include an unspecified number of “stone chips”. Pipe data from the current catalog indicates 1 pipe stem